On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
You're right, I should have clarified I was suggesting that it was
possible grounds for DISCHARGE rather than not guilty, that's the only
place for custom to enter. However, I'd say that I didn't know the
election
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1)
{{{
Amend Rule 2259 by replacing
Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active
player is audited that player gains one Rest for each
rule-defined card e owns in
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1)
{{{
Amend Rule 2259 by replacing
Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active
player is audited that player gains one Rest for each
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:58, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1)
{{{
Amend Rule 2259 by replacing
Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active
player
http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
--
-c.
2009/9/2 comex com...@gmail.com:
http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
It sure would be nice if this centralised automation was at all accessible, huh.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:18, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
I fixed it. Sorry for the trouble.
BobTHJ
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Gratuitous: Although I did in fact review this intent (as can easily be
determined from PerlNomic's logs), I didn't have a reasonable
opportunity to review it (a few hours is not a reasonable opportunity);
and what R101
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 13:38 -0400, comex wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Gratuitous: Although I did in fact review this intent (as can easily be
determined from PerlNomic's logs), I didn't have a reasonable
opportunity to review it (a few
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:42 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Gratuitous: You are mistaking the meaning of reasonable opportunity.
The meaning in R101 implies, to me, that it's reasonable to conclude
that the player would have had the opportunity no matter what the
circumstances;
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 13:57 -0400, comex wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, The PerlNomic
Partnershipperlno...@nomictools.com wrote:
ais523 wrote (referring to a message sent from this email earlier today):
Additionally: CoE: you are not the PerlNomic Partnership, due to being
on the
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:11 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
but if the second one was, then the first one wasn't, as
it denies that the first one was sent by it (i.e. accepting the CoE);
the Executor of the first message is definitely comex, and it's
plausible to reason that it
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I make the above change, assuming ais523 and I were actually the last
2 people to be active on PerlNomic when the file making us active was
deleted. (This is probably impossible to determine, but seems very
likely
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jonatan
Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
=== Grand Poobah's Deck of Government report ===
Suggestion for addition to this and all other card reports: what cards
actually do. I can never remember.
--
C-walker (Charles Walker)
2009/9/2 Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jonatan
Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
=== Grand Poobah's Deck of Government report ===
Suggestion for addition to this and all other card reports: what cards
actually do. I can never
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:25, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) by appending this text:
As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each dealer
of a basic deck SHALL by announcement audit each entity who owns
at least as many cards
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist,
comex wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:11 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
but if the second one was, then the first one wasn't, as
it denies that the first one was sent by it (i.e. accepting the CoE);
the Executor of the first message is definitely comex, and it's
plausible to
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 15:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming
I believe there are at least two people who want my Presto! card. What
are your offers?
BobTHJ wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:25, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) by appending this text:
As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each dealer
of a basic deck SHALL by announcement audit each entity who owns
at
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play
ais523 wrote:
Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that
proposal.
Consider what happens when a smart-ass Justiciar assigns ID number
99. Just because we haven't had any chaotic ID numbers
yet doesn't mean the concept isn't useful.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that
proposal.
Consider what happens when a smart-ass Justiciar assigns ID number
99. Just because we haven't had any chaotic ID
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Kill it with fire
(AI = 2, please)
Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this
proposal was submitted.
Wouldn't this fail due to the retroactive effect? Why not just
terminate as of the
BobTHJ wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Kill it with fire
(AI = 2, please)
Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this
proposal was submitted.
Wouldn't this fail due to the retroactive effect? Why not just
terminate
Ed Murphy wrote:
I spend a Distrib-u-Matic to make the following proposal distributable.
Proposal: Chaotic fix
I think this works, but it would be nice to be sure. Does the proposal
exist yet when the Distrib-u-Matic is played earlier in the message?
We've generally treated actions within a
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I wrote:
I play Kill Bill, naming the decision on Proposal 6466.
TTttPF
You realize this undoes all your voting limit playing?
Yes, the point is that much of that voting limit playing was
botched due to Arm-Twist being worded wrong.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 16:20, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Kill it with fire
(AI = 2, please)
Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this
proposal was submitted.
29 matches
Mail list logo
